Posted on 02/01/2006 6:32:25 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Absolute nonsense (but then, you were predicting Dover would win, in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, all the way through the trial.) While other courts are not bound by the decision, they will inevitably give it a great deal of consideration. In fact, the major previous case on 'Creation Science', McLean, was never appealed, but it effectively killed attempts to teach old fashioned 'creation scienc'e in schools.
Holy Cow! You mean I've been citing case law in briefs for all these years for no reason? And for centuries courts have been erroneously guided by case law? If only we had known!
That is true, as I have said more than once.
Jones' opinion has absolutely no relevance to any future case; even within the same district.
That is most definitely not true. The witness testimony exists. Those same witnesses (Behe, etc.) can't contradict themselves in other trials. The facts that were brought out won't go away. The fraudulent nature of that idiotic Pandas book is there for all the world to see. Any new ID case will see the same material all over again. That's why there probably won't be any more ID cases.
Citing an opinion of a US District Court Judge, even if it is eventually published in the Federal Supplement, is not binding on any other court. If the case were to be reviewed by a US circuit, that opinion would be binding on all the districts within the Circuit, but not on any other circuit.
I can't believe any attorney would be so ignorant as to think the opinion of one US District court judge is binding on any other US District Court.
Someone as ignorant as you has no business telling me about case law. If you are such a hotshot legal researcher, I'm sure you can back up your claim that the decision of a single US District Court Judge is binding on other US District Courts. The problem is, you know it isn't true.
Good luck in finding one.
The 'district' I was referring to is the US district court, not the 'school district'.
So I guess all those Fed. Supp.'s in the library are just useless now. I'll spread the word.
I did not predict that the school district would win; and specifically stated that, based on my experience with courts, one cannot predict how a judge would rule on any case or that the judge would even follow the law.
One way that the law resembles evolution, is that complete cluelessness about the subject seldom inhibits people from having a strong opinion. :-)
I didn't say they were useless. I said they weren't binding on any other court. Maybe you should brush up on the principles of construction before commenting on my posts.
Unless a particular reasoning of a case published in the Fed. Supp. is adopted by reference in a US Circuit opinion, it is not binding.
The Fed. Supp.s can be useful when looking for legal reasoning in support of another case. Any claim that it has precedential value is very misleading. Are you really so ignorant that you think otherwise?
You must certainly know that a case published in the Fed, Supp. is not binding on a US Circuit Court.
I don't care if you are a lawyer, because I know lots of lawyers who are corrupt or incompetent; judges, too.
Read my post #109.
Nah.
You said Jones' opinion has absolutely no relevance to any future case; even within the same district
Heck of a difference.
This statement is pure hogwash.
And now you also state: Any claim that it has precedential value is very misleading.
Misleading how? Are you suggesting that federal circuit courts do not cite, rely upon, refer to, reason from, or otherwise make precedential use of district court opinions? Or is it that you simply don't know the scope, use, and permutations of precedents?
You can cite the Euro courts if you'd like but they, like Jones steroid laced holding, are not authoritarian. Your "cite" wouldn't even bind other judges sitting on the same court and thats the point the guy was making.
Learn to read. He didn't say they weren't binding. He said they had no relevance.
Nah,nah,nah,nah,nah,nah. I recognize your tone from observing children interact. I thought I'd reply in kind just for the helluva it.
He didn't say they weren't binding. He said they had no relevance
I know what he said and what's more I think I understood better than you what he meant.
I did not say Fed. Supp. cases are are not used by other courts. I said they were not binding on other courts. they could be cited favorably, or unfavorably. It isn't a one way street.
As you should know, a decision in one US Circuit is not binding on another Circuit. it may or may not be influential; but it is not binding until the US Supreme court makes a determination on the issue.
If you are so certain of your position regarding the precedential value of a case published in the Fed. Supp., all you have to do is cite a US circuit court opinion backing up your claim. the fact is, you know there is no such case.
US District Court Judge 'A' is bound by a decision of US district Court Judge 'B', even within the same judicial district.
Mind-melding for dummies?
As it turns out I was right and you, well you simply lived up to the motto on your T-Shirt. To wit:
"I AIN'T NO FREAKING PEOPLE PERSON"
Illiterate beating a dead horse placemarker
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.